Marakar v. United States Ali v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 1234,M,No. 1191,1191,1234 |
| Citation | 82 S.Ct. 1573,8 L.Ed.2d 803,370 U.S. 723 |
| Parties | Mohamed MARAKAR v. UNITED STATES. isc. Niamat A. Mushraf ALI v. UNITED STATES. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Cox, for the United States.
On Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. On motion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments are vacated, and the causes are remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with directions to dismiss the indictments.
Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice BRENNAN join the Court's disposition because they believe that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was an insurmountable barrier to the prosecution of these petitioners under the separate indictments returned on April 26, 1961 charging each petitioner with a substantive offense of illegally bringing opium into this country. See Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 196, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (separate opinion); cf. Petite v. United States 361 U.S. 529, 533, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490 (dissenting opinion).
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Whitehorn
...in that substantive offense. Id.; see also, United States v. Marakar, 300 F.2d 513 (3d Cir.1962), cert. granted, 370 U.S. 723, 82 S.Ct. 1573, 8 L.Ed.2d 803, and judgment vacated and indictment dismissed at the request of the Solicitor General. The problem arises when a defendant is tried in......
-
State v. Williams
...doctrine of collateral estoppel does not. United States v. Marakar, 300 F.2d 513 (3rd Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 370 U.S. 723, 82 S.Ct. 1573, 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962); State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540, 558 P.2d 692 (1976). Third, and most important, in order for the defense of double jeopa......
-
U.S. v. Thompson
...the government's motion. See Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490 (1960); Marakar v. United States, 370 U.S. 723, 82 S.Ct. 1573, 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962); Redmond v. United States, 384 U.S. 264, 86 S.Ct. 1415, 16 L.Ed.2d 521 (1966); Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.......
-
United States v. Cioffi
...In at least two cases, Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490 (1960), and Marakar v. United States, 370 U.S. 723, 82 S.Ct. 1573, 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962), the Government has avoided testing the continued validity of the traditional formulation by requesting the dismi......